the question of the definition 16:9 appears every now and then and I'm on my previous paradigm since a posting of grovel (see 16:9 s.Revidieren in SonyHC17). ;-)
I propose that we agree on a clear nomenclature, with three possible variants of 16:9 and terms such as "right" or "wrong", which indeed describe only two states, differentiated in the future. I would like to take up the classification of grovel and supplemented as follows and describe:
16:9 Letterbox
It is true-4:3-shots, whose image content with black bars cut so that the impression of a widescreen image. Without question we have here to do with "an assumed 16:9" because Resolutionliefert section only the visible part of the set. Of the 720 × 576 pixels (pixel aspect ratio of 1.07) are each 72 pixels cut off top and bottom, so that the visible picture only 720 × measure 432 pixels.
The undoubted optimum. Here we are dealing with a wide-screen of a 16:9 image converter to ... or 4:3-one of the image intensifier, using an anamorphic lens, or one of 4:3-image converter with enough resolution. In the latter case, the 16:9 picture shows the left and right, but not synonymous information from more than 4:3-Picture of the same camcorder, but the Resolutionreicht to produce a full 16:9 picture to be in all respects.
Regarding the recording of wide angle, I would like to the thread problem with 16:9 APP
Antwort von jens:
Hi Mark, find your class contribution. Where can I find that synonymous spontaneous recognition of a difference between the 16:9 (sample images) relative to a more (the other is less).
In general: it is actually must have a unique (universal) specification of these terms give (rather than what we go there and her argument).
"Markus" wrote:
Native 16:9 ... of 4:3-one image intensifier with sufficient resolution. In the latter case, the 16:9 picture shows the left and right, but not synonymous information than the 4:3-Picture of the same camcorder ;-)
This I do not agree. With the use of these camcorders, I could certainly see a clear More s.Informationen Horizontally, in 16:9 mode. A misunderstanding? Greetings, Jens
Antwort von Markus:
"Jens" wrote:
In general: it is actually must have a unique (universal) specification of these terms give (rather than what we go there and her argument).
Am for a proposal or left open at any time ... ;-)
"Jens" wrote:
With the use of such [4:3 -] camcorders, I could certainly see a clear More s.Informationen Horizontally, in 16:9 mode.
In this case, the 4:3-camcorder does not appear to the entire CCD area to produce the 4:3-image can be used to mobilize and to output a 16:9 image to additional areas. Did you this?
Antwort von jens:
"Markus" wrote:
Am for a proposal or left open at any time ... ;-)
I synonymous ;-)
"Markus" wrote:
In this case, the 4:3-camcorder does not appear to the entire CCD area to produce the 4:3-image can be used to mobilize and to output a 16:9 image to additional areas. Did you this?
Exactly. I think that in those megapixel camcorders, the rule is. Since "true" 16:9 over 720 (* has 576). The whole fun is yes but then again 720 * 576 already lashed onto tape. Greetings and a good rum, Jens
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
16:9 Anamorphic widescreen is a real! If it has the same synonymous Resolutionwie a 4:3 picture. would you give it in 4:3 mode again, it would be stretched in the Height. Therefore, it is not a question of interpolation.
Antwort von AndreasBloechl:
Hello That brings me but not really to my problem with the TRV33 of Sonynext. I believe that it is this a normal letterbox but where additional Unneeded pixel has (made even 1.07 Mio) for the wider cutting. But what exactly is it?
Antwort von MiXMaster:
Quote:
I believe that it is this a normal letterbox but where additional Unneeded pixel has (made even 1.07 Mio) for the wider cutting.
You've brought tremendous mess something somewhere else you have told your cam would make anamorphic 16:9. I assume you looked at you, not one single video of your cam, otherwise you knew within five minutes of what you have actually.
Antwort von AndreasBloechl:
I have never claimed I'm 16:9 anamorphic. They were different. Therefore, synonymous, the e-mail that I've s.Sonygeschickt. But next time I will tape record everything in 16:9 and then test times correctly. 'M ME UP TODAY IS STILL NOT SURE WHAT THE CASE OF TRV33.
Antwort von MiXMaster:
Do you get it really out?
Antwort von Markus:
"Jens" wrote:
"Markus" wrote:
Am for a proposal or left open at any time ... ;-)
I synonymous ;-)
Okay, in this case, look at my receipt when posting just such a proposal. Where else would you find a reference book, if not at slashCAM? ;-)
FireWire FAQ">16:9 Anamorphic widescreen is a real! If it has the same synonymous Resolutionwie a 4:3 picture. would you give it in 4:3 mode again, it would be stretched in the Height. Therefore, it is not a question of interpolation.
FireWire FAQ"> That's what I meant with "This is a" technically full "widescreen ...". Also a 16:9 camcorder with 16:9 - CCD stores only 720 × 576 pixels, however, must be a 4:3-image converter with PAL Resolutionhier Principal sponsors back a little. ;-)
Antwort von Jan:
Hello you,
I would be somewhat older TRV 33 of Andi for Type 1 "16 / 9 letterbox hold" because then popular in the consumer class of 16 / 9 mode, the "Pixelwegschnitt" option was for the producers.
But one thing I see is not so, that with a camera, which is on display with a 4:3 CCD and 16:9 setting at a 4:3 LCD, the exact same output frame, which is then in a camera with more Resolutionvon virgin 16 / 9 speaks. This can be tested synonymous bad, eg the camera. Andi's with the same image area (I guess, like HC 17,19,22,32 etc) virgin 16 / 9 or not.
In my opinion, must be virgin at 16 / 9 to see a larger image area and not the same as in 4:3 no preference whether s.16 / 9 TV set, or 16 / 9 LCD, a divisive issue halt.
But Super Article Markus!
LG January
Antwort von AndreasBloechl:
Hello Jan Look at times this link to. What do you think? So I understand it that way, yes, the TRV33 has more pixels than those needed for normal DV. It is used as the excess pixels for a broader picture. I know really do not what to think of it. Anamorpf I think it is still not. http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-dcr-trv33-camcorder-review.htm
Antwort von wernergabriel:
I have this book now and then I flew over time when trying disambiguation of Marcus stayed times vary. The distinction I think objectively very good, but with a little objection. The names "Native 16:9 Anamorphic 16:9 and I do not consider optimal, as namely, with the exception of Letterboxverfahren each 16:9 anamorphic format stored and played back will be synonymous and synonymous with the true professional HD cameras (not only HDV) and synonymous Austrahlungen the HDTV in DVB-S2 on TV. The Anamorphität can be achieved in two ways: either with an anamorphic optical eg CinemaScope 35mm films, or by electronic horizontal compression in the camcorder. Another question is whether the sensor chip inside the camcorder as many pixels, that a true 16:9 recording and resolution is possible. Pal-in procedure so he must be at least 960 pixels square horizontally and 540 (are real), vertical, synonymous if the sensor itself has a 4:3 format and thus allow photos. In the HDV cameras, the neueCanonXL H1E actually uses 1920 * 1080 pixels and converts them anamorh at 1440 * 1080. The HC1 with its 3 million pixels in 4:3 format could indeed synonymous, but allegedly internal use only about 720 pixels vertically. The FX1 is a special case, although it has 1080 pixels vertically for each sensor, but only 960 square pixels horizontally, which are then extrapolated to 1440 by pixel shift (ie, no compression anamorhe required) The JVC PD1 is also a special case, it is a Pal-camera that works internal but with 1280 * 720 pixels, reducing the internal to the PAL format, of course, makes one synonymous anamorphic distortion, and does not save in DV but in Mpeg2 procedures So unusual.
In my view, therefore, only the difference between letterbox (dung) and 16:9 anamorphic necessary and furthermore whether the sensor chip in a resolution at all and allow both synonymous with HDV than with DV
LG Helmut
Antwort von Jan:
Hello you,
33 should be got out of TRV as 2003, then I really had no camera in the price range do not have the letterbox / Beschmuh variant has chosen. Andi times probably need a movie to a PC to play and looking for what the 16 / 9 material is specified.
The latest Consumer SonyHC now 96 has 9000 net more pixels at 16 / 9 and a larger image area.
The prosumer Canon XL 2 has 140,000 more pixels on net 16 / 9.
You may, at the HC 96 but not to speak at 9000 of 2 million more pixels of a first-class 16 / 9, when mobilized 3x more expensive XL 2 140,000?
LG January
Antwort von Markus:
"Helmut" wrote:
The names "Native 16:9 Anamorphic 16:9 and I do not consider optimal, as namely, with the exception of Letterboxverfahren each anamorphic 16:9 format stored and played back is synonymous ...
Yes, it was / I am aware. When I wrote the article, it occurred to me honestly nothing better to say. Do you have a suggestion on how each mode might be better known? ;-)
Antwort von wernergabriel:
How about with:
Letterbox 16:9 up-scaled 16:9 unscaled 16:9 scaled down 16:9
Just a suggestion, what better fältt me a non-synonymous.
LG Helmut
Antwort von Markus:
The former, yes, but upskaliert unscaled, and downskaliert ... that is a bit like the
Antwort von videot:
"Markus" wrote:
16:9 Letterbox [...] Of the 720 × 576 pixels (pixel aspect ratio of 1.07) are cut off each 72 pixels above and below, so that the visible picture only 720 × 432 pixels measure [...]
have a few questions to the "fake letterbox": - Can someone tell me reckon / why you 72pxl notes per bar? (I come to 85.5 ... or am I wrong?) - How does such screens material to 16:9? beams are displayed anyway, so play the video in 4:3 format? or is a possibility that these beams are detected and gecropt or something like that ...?
danke & grüße. vid
Antwort von Markus:
"videot" wrote:
- Can someone tell me reckon / why you 72pxl notes per bar?
Hello,
a PAL video image measures 720 × 576 pixels for digital video and 768 × 576 pixels with square pixels (so-called PAL Square, read more: 4:3 or 5:4).
768 × 576 pixels correspond to an aspect ratio of 4:3. Counting on you through the three-pronged approach to the 16:9 format to (the width remains), then you get 768 × 432 pixels. - The image height of 432 and 576 of subtrahierst You now get 144th as the difference You dividierst this value by 2, since there two bars (are) at the top and bottom.
"videot" wrote:
- How does such screens material to 16:9? beams are displayed anyway, so play the video in 4:3 format? or is a possibility that these beams are detected and gecropt or something like that ...?
16:9 letterbox is true 4:3, ie a wide-screen television displays the picture with black bars at the top, bottom, left and right side. The video looks like this, as if it had been scaled down.
Most of the 16:9-Television have a zoom function, with which one can represent the full frame picture. Much better picture of the impression this is not because the existing image size is artificially inflated, without new image information to be visible.
Antwort von GerdB:
"Anonymous" wrote:
The names "Native 16:9 Anamorphic 16:9 and I do not consider optimal, as namely, with the exception of Letterboxverfahren each 16:9 anamorphic format stored and played back will be synonymous and synonymous with the true professional HD cameras.
Whether it's true for all professional formats, I dare say - for the format being discussed here in general, but's true in any case. That may change in future with new recording standards, of course again.
Actually it is synonymous but not too difficult: just called 16:9 aspect ratio. The crucial question is not until further notice: Anamorphic right?
"Anonymous" wrote:
In my view, therefore, only the difference between letterbox (dung) and 16:9 anamorphic necessary and furthermore whether the sensor chip in a resolution at all and allow both synonymous with HDV than with DV
Exactly.
Antwort von Markus:
"Helmut (guest) wrote:
The names "Native 16:9 Anamorphic 16:9 and I do not consider optimal, as namely, with the exception of Letterboxverfahren each anamorphic 16:9 format stored and played back is synonymous ...
HDV is a consumer format, where HDV1 natively stored as HDV2 than 16:9 and 16:9 anamorphic.
However, I drew myself with my above post only on SD-consumer formats. - I might have to dazuschreiben yet. ;-)
Antwort von Nio:
But which of them is the variety-then the 16:9 Wide?
After skimming, I would tap the Native 16:9, is that right?
Antwort von Nio:
Not enough infos, right? If you need more einfachn ask. Thanks ....
Antwort von Markus:
"Nio" wrote:
But which of them is the variety-then the 16:9 Wide? After skimming, I would tap the Native 16:9, is that right?
I have this question from the thread
Antwort von thob1518:
Hello! So if I am with my nv-gs250 anamorphic 16:9 to include the quasi-native? the image converter is indeed 4:3, but it has 800,000 pixels. Pal DV Widescreen is indeed 1024x576 px (according to wikipedia). that would be just under 590,000 pixels you need for true 16:9?
ne other question: am I've got a quality loss duch the längergezogenen pixel in comparison to 4:3?
